View Full Version : discrimination
07-02-01, 12:02 PM
It seems that nearly every day we enact another law that states we will not discriminate against (sex, race religon, creed, beliefs). I propose this........one law.........do not discriminate. I feel the definition of this word is sufficient to cover all the afore mentioned catagories of the populous. My second reason is that by acknowledging the "seperate" groups of people we with our own laws acknowledge differences. If our laws are to be "blind", then to see people as different makes this impossible.
DO AWAY WITH LABLES, and I believe the differences most people notice will disapear as well, not over night, but at a reasonable rate to acco9mplish the goal of non-discirmination.
That sounds good, but it can't be done. Discrimination is the foundation of our laws. That's why they are so complex. It's not just race, sexual orientation, or gender...it's also all of the other things which seperate us from the others.
I wish it was that simple.
but as bowser said, it ain't.
laws are mad to make it possible to punish someone who overruled the law. So the law must say what punishment you get, and when you get it.
when you are white and you say to someone who is black 'you are black' the person will feel that that is discrimination, but you won't feel it like that.
So the law must say when something is discrimination.
That's the major problem, and good discussion stuff..
What exactly is discrimination????
(btw, some people will probably find my example also discrimination, but I tried to formulate it as good as I can)
07-03-01, 06:16 AM
hey all :)
LOL....... i am yet to see a white or black person!
or green or yellow or red or grey for that matter :)
radalllee i think you have actualy hit the nail on the head!
think about what colour people realy are!
light and dark!
and yet that is what you must call your coffee :)
i think the flow is something along the lines of
religon>political belief>ethnicity>skin tone>sex>size>demographics(living in a poor or rich area)
look to tiassa s' posts on (oooopppppppssss sorry somewhere)
self evaluation/comparison/mesurement of worth and thus wealth!
if i remember where tiassa posted it i will point to it :/
crux of the matter!= most people need to compare themselfs to someone so they can feel good about them selfs!
groove on all :)
Iíd like to think that common sense would rule, but that doesnít seem to be enough. There are too many extremist views around, and people looking for opportunities to take advantage of others for financial gain, especially in the litigation mad farce of the USA.
So unfortunately we must set boundaries otherwise we would see a great deal of foolishness. For example, suppose a short person (say 5 feet) decided that the manufacturer of kitchen counter tops was making the counters too high and was therefore discriminating against short people. Iím sure you can imagine many other silly situations. But that is the nature of this very crowded world; someone somewhere will see an opportunity for personal gain and often at the expense of someone else.
I like to quote this guideline that I use when considering how to react to those around me: Ďpeople should be free to do whatever they wish providing such actions do not interfere with the freedom of othersí. I always thought that if this was combined with common sense then that could replace practically every law ever written. Unfortunately human nature isnít that simple.
Unfortunately human nature isnít that simple
Well, I wouldn't say human nature isn't that simple.
I would like to formulate it like this:
We are crazy (everyone)
We are crazy (everyone) Yes, I've noticed that about you at least.:D
I will see that as a compliment......
you're crazy too cris.
Discrimination is the act of differentiating internally between the perception of external events. Chocolate or vanilla? To distinguish twixt the two is to discriminate.
Segregation is the act of separating external events based on discriminatory conclusions.
Both words have fairly neutral implications in their most academic form.
Now combine the two: So you prefer roses to tulips because roses are prettier. Note the subjective standard upon which preference is based. You have spoken no unkindness to the tulips.
But we are human beings, and prone to personalization. Our base cultural assumptions regarding human nature note the worst in people; thus, the criteria upon which we first discriminate, and next segregate, are largely subjective and negative.
Thus it would become that a person prefers roses to tulips because tulips stink. Or prefers tulips to roses because tulips don't have nasty thorns.
Cats and dogs? Do you like cats because they're aloof? Do you like dogs because they're personable? What, then, if you prefer dogs because cats are stupid arrogant pricks? Or if you prefer cats because dogs are slobbering vacuous sycophants?
What about people? Does one prefer the presence (sexuality is irrelevant) of a woman because women make more sense? Or does one prefer the presence of women because men are all mean cock-knocking perverts? Does one prefer the presence of men because one is comfortable among men? Or does one prefer the presence of men because women are meddling bitchy twits?
Everyone who knows me knows I am exceptionally comfortable among "white" culture. Rather, I am uncomfortable among most, if not all cultural paradigms, but it is documented that my upbringing and my general familiarity with white culture in America dominates my perspective. When I feel uncomfortable in a neighborhood predominantly bearing dark skin, it is only because of artificial criteria for discrimination. I separate myself from that other human being because ...? Well, in my own life, I've heard black people be blamed for everything. It's a bit rough to shake off from time to time, and it infuriates me when I find some tattered remnant of the old hatreds clinging to me. So in this sense, the question becomes: Why don't you date that black woman who is obviously interested in you? (I'll skip the first question: Obviously? There is doubt as to the degree.)
Issues of comfort is the answer: This woman is a forceful personality with a grating voice and a head full of high-minded ideas that all center around the material improvement of the self.
Proper discrimination, by my reckoning, would be that I wouldn't want to date this woman because, well, she's annoying in doses beyond ten or so minutes.
Inappropriate discrimination would be that I wouldn't want to date her because she's annoying and assumptive and self-centered, "just like They all are."
The result can be the same: I have discriminated and then segregated. The motivation is much, much different. She's not inferior. She is simply someone with whom I have little in common.
Thus, the key to discrimination is intent versus result. To license mere intent means that all those folks who hate people for skin color or gender or whatnot can continue to do so because their intent is to "protect their children", or other such excuse for logic.
Pick it up in the US just after emancipation: That Negro is uncultured, uneducated, and can't keep a job. Well ... we the people decided that the Negroes should be so. Slavery, illiteracy, Jim Crow, disenfranchisement, substandard schools (separate but equal, my ass!), and a full-blown police action brings us up to the modern day. Discrimination founded on ill-conceived affinities have ripped apart the soul of the country.
And therein lies the key: Discrimination is a word that represents a simple differentiation within a person's perception. What we do with that difference--when and how we choose to discriminate--makes all the difference in the world.
Proper discrimination: In the 1980's, much of the HIV-prevention effort focused solely on homosexuals and IV drug users, two groups not finding widespread public acceptance. That the government chose to focus on these groups indicates no inappropriate discrimination, but rather the recognition that the vital criteria pertaining to the spread of HIV indicated that here is a good place to start.
Inappropriate discrimination: In the 1990's, acting on Biblical interpretation, conservative Christians asked the State of Oregon to discriminate (by recognizing homosexuals), segregate (by classifying homosexuals as a single unit) and then to fire them (because they are homosexual) in order to guarantee Christian freedom and thus not discriminate inappropriately against Christians. The intent of the discrimination is inappropriate here; that impropriety comes from the assumed superiority Christians award to themselves. Whereas proper discrimination offered no suspension of Liberty for anyone, the inappropriate discrimination manifests an impure motive and causes human beings hurt.
Or something about like that.
Positive: To be discriminating.
Negative: To discriminate.
Within the Black community: Extremely discriminating.
The madness of it all!